Talk:Nichiren/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Question about These Questions

Nichiren's life and message were about the equality of all human beings, about the ability of every human being to acheive enlightenment in his/her lifetime, and about the fact that until we each come to understood our own power to create our own happiness, to influence our envirionment, and to resolve our own karmic baggage, until we stopped giving up our authority to a priesthood or a government official, or even a God (capital G), until we see life for what it truly is, we will continue to be stuck in the same endless cycle of sufferring.

He said that because we are all have the same potential for Budhahood within us, that we are all equally worthy of respect. And that means that no one, no person (in the form of priest or politician, or what have you) has any special authority to stand between one and ones attainment of enlightenment. Your enlightenment is already YOURS! It is INSIDE you! Nichiren was trying to shatter the shackles that bind us.

But, you know, there are always those so used to their prison that they are afraid to go out in the light, even if the door is wide open.

All of this over-intellectualized, doctrinal mind f---- is absolutely in oppostition to Nichiren's message. It is like burying ones head in a sandpit of words and dates and doctrine and dogma, and why? To have a truly accurate depcition of the man and his life? Or, is it just an unconcious means of avoiding the light? How is any of this stuff going to help you become happy?

I quote in excerpted form from the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, On Attaining Buddhahood in this Lifetime:

If you wish to free yourself from the sufferings of birth and death you have endured since time without beginning and to attain without fail unsurpassed enlightenment in this lifetime, you must perceive the mystic truth that is originally inherent in all living beings.... Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the true nature of your life. If you seek enlight-enment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain... That is why the T'ien-t'ai school's commentary states, "Unless one perceives the nature of one's life, one cannot eradicate one's grave offenses.

This passage implies that, unless one perceives the nature of one's life, one's practice will become an endless, painful austerity.

This that you are engaging in, my friends is an "endless, painful austerity." Wishing you well... - R

Reply Whether I agree or diagree with some of your points aside, if people want to mind-f____, as you put it, let them. I have little sympathy for those whose intent is only to discredit—whether it be Nichiren altogether, a particular school, a particular object, or even religion altogether—but sometimes their questions (and such) can be revealing in a positive way as well. In any case, fragments alone—whether quotations from certain of Nichiren's writings, the authenticity or inauthenticity of a few documents or objects, or the accuracy or inaccuracy of a several dates—do not give a full pitcure. It's only when all the fragments come together and can be weighed in the context of the whole that the whole—which includes also the actions, attitudes, and behavior of those involved—comes to light. Jim_Lockhart 04:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Just having a little fun. I do mean what I say, though, it is too easy lose sight of the THE POINT - happiness, self fulfillment, developing compassion, developing self responsibility, developing a sense of responsibility for and to others, all for the sake of creating a (more) peacefule world. I do also believe that we can get bogged down in these kinds of discussions and they can cloud the issue - it is what happens/ed to most religions, I think, turning the message into dogma...then arguing over the dogma and forgetting the message.... But in truth, I also appreciate the discussion, and I know that there is much that is worthy in this kind of discussion as well. Sorry. Something just came over me! :-) - R

Was Nichiren ever respected by the Bakufu?

Upon Nichiren's death, was Nichiren ever respected by the Bakufu government of that time? By the way, what shogunate was it at Nichiren's time? Thanks if anyone got some information. Gammadion 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "Nichiren ... respected by the [b]akufu"? The bakufu of his day was the Kamakura Bakufu, which certainly took him seriously (if that's what you mean by "respected"). If you mean, "did any bakufu ever practice his teachings," I would say that the answer is no. If you mean, "did individuals of a bakufu ever practice his teachings?" the answer becomes a bit complicated. There have been many Nichiren schools since shortly after his death, and all of them have enjoyed a degree of partonisim from indivudual persons in the bakufu, though most have been heavilly persecuted by the various bakufu, mainly for their strident evangelism, which was seen a socially disruptive. It should be noted that this situation was similar for some non-Nichiren Buddhist sects as well. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 04:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Would love to know more about this - can you provide some cites?(Attributed most likely to R-Gammadion 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

Again, instead of writing and asking with such ambiguity, could people (Don't know who wrote this one liner. Gammadion? R?) please be clearer about what they mean? For instance, the previous paragraph (about the bakufu), touches on several issues, so which does the this refer to? Jim_Lockhart 08:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the one liner.*Bows deeply* What I know was that an official of the shogunate governmentKamakura Bakufu, Hae no Saemon, prosecuted Nichiren Daishonin. What was the official watchword of the shogunate at that time? Was there any direct orders from the shogunate ordering Daishonin to cease and desist in his propaganda activities? Thanks for the information about the individuals in the bakufu.Gammadion 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about Last Sentence

The last sentence "the other five disciples to a man turned their back on Nichiren's philosophy." sounds a bit weird. Not sure what it means. --Menchi (Talk)â 05:37, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's basically sectarian speak for "The other five disagreed with our guy" and is one grouping's usual way of explaining Nikko's decision to leave Mt Minobu. Even Nichiren Shoshu (which claims direct descendancy from Nikko) doesn't like Nichiren's religion being referred to a "philosophy"; besides, it wasn't "philosophical" elements that the six elders disagreed on.

This article has several historical inaccuracies and the focus is not as much on Nichiren as on the religious groups that he spawned. It needs to be reworked to present his lifetime and works (something I would like to undertake later) and to leave the sect- and school-specific content to articles on those schools. Just my opinion, of course... Jim_Lockhart 03:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Dates of birth and death

Britannica has March 30, 1222 - Nov. 14, 1282. Which is right? Mandel June 30, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

It's possible that Britannica's editors figured out the date according to the Gregorian calendar. The actual dates are "the sixteenth day of the second lunar month of 1222" and "the thirteenth day of the tenth lunar month of 1282", and most temples have their observances on 16 Feb and 13 Oct; some of the "head" temples—those ranked as honzan, regardless of school—following the lunar calendar for these observances (especially that of Nichiren's passing, called o-eshiki), holding them in March and November, with some variation depending on the year.

HTH, Jim_Lockhart 1 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

so which is right, Wikipedia or Britannica? Mandel 18:11, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, they are both correct: they're both talking about the same dates, only from different perspectives. But the dates most frequently cited (by any source) are those in Wikipedia. Jim_Lockhart 01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't get it..."the sixteenth day of the second lunar month of 1222" and "the thirteenth day of the tenth lunar month of 1282" must coincide to historical dates in the Gregorian calender, the one we used in Wikipedia. How can they both be right? We shouldn't bother when the observances are held each year in the lunar month converted to Gregorian (which will vary annually), but on what exact days those dates corresponds to in the years 1222 and 1282. Mandel 13:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the lunar dates must coincide with dates in the Gregorian calendar; but given that the Gregorian calendar was instituted in 1582, how crucial is it that these dates be recalculated? Why not just cite both, given that, regardless of what the exact dates were in the 13th century by the Gregorian, the approximate dates (February 16 and October 13) are commonly used by both scholars and non-scholars? I can imagine that the precise dates by the Gregorian are important to those who are, for example, seeking to pinpoint the coincidence of events.

This also raises a question for me: to what extent are other similar dates (i.e., those of other events that took place in localities or times using non-Gregorian calendars) rendered in Wikipedia in their precise Gregorian dates? If you are going to change these dates for Nichiren's birth and death, I suspect you will have to change the dates for numerous other events as well—events not just in his life, but in the lives of all other historical persons living where the Gregorian was not prevalent as well.

Have fun. Jim_Lockhart 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

New material added 2005.11.26

I have removed the following because it is only tangetially relevant to the subject of the section, adds nothing of informational quality about Nichiren's intentions, and in fact interrupts the flow of the explanation.

He based his views on his studies of the sutras, and the Lotus Sutra in particular. Among other things, in this teaching, Sakyamuni declared often that it (the Lotus Sutra) was the true teaching and that his earlier teachings has been provisional. For example, from the second chapter, "The Expedient Means,":

…now I say to you, I have preached various sutras, and among those sutras the Lotus is foremost!

…This sutra opens the gate of expedient means and shows the form of true reality. This storehouse of the Lotus Sutra is hidden deep and far away where no person can reach it. But the Buddha, teaching, converting and leading to success the bodhisattvas, opens it up for them.

I do not understand the intent of today's additions. Please explain them. Also, why is the link to SGI's site necessary? Shouldn't information on the Lotus Sutra and explanations of why it was Shakyamuni's ultimate teaching (in was not his final teaching, either; the Nehan-kyo came after it).

Also, what is the point in watering down Nichiren's refutations of the other Buddhist schools (he labeled them heretical!) and in saying that Nichiren was opposed to corrupt religious and political institutions? Although in effect he may have been, such opposition was neither his primary nor professed purpose: He saw other sects and religions as heretical and therefore as leading people to unhappiness. Also, he had tono particular focus on "the people" as this term is used in post-18th century political discourse: his intent was to save all people regardless of social or political station.

Other historical inaccuracies are also creeping into the article with regard to Japanese society in the 12th century.

Best regards, Jersey_Jim 07:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jim, how are ya? - My take on the above comment: It suggests that Nichiren didn't just decide of his own accord that the Lotus Sutra was the ultimate teaching, but rather that he took his cue from Shakyamuni's own words (those quoted are from the Lotus Sutra istelf). Nichiren gets a bad rap in my view, for having "opposed" other forms of Buddhism, when in reality, I think it was much more about him saying "Hey, look, guys - we've been given a direction from the guy who has the map, and we're not paying attention! We are going down the wrong road! Let's change course!" When he wasn't listened to, he got a bit loud on them. I am being a little facetious here, but, I think my point is valid, or at least worth considering. It seems worth noting to me. Or, if not noting in the article, it at leasts warrents a toning down of the attitude towards him. He is definately often presented as some kind of malcontent or rabble rouser or something, and I don't think that's fair - nor is it NPOV. So, with revisions, I think the paragraph is worth it. What do you think? - R--71.250.88.213 04:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine thanks. :) Well, Ruby, I sense that you're thinking hard about these things, as are the others here, and putting a lot of time and work into this, so I don't what to discourage or offend you. But that makes it hard to be frank. Please read my comments with that awareness.

I think you're not reading the whole article and letting it say these things in logical threads: it already says elsewhere some of the things you mention, and you're inserting elements that describe things only certain schools believe, writing them as generalities. I sense that you're jumping the gun a little bit—maybe wanting to say too much all at once. For instance, the notion of awakening the Buddha within, or "innate Buddhahood" as you have phrased it—is not perceived in the same way by all Nichiren schools. Further, a number of non-Nichiren schools, such as Shingon and Tendai, also make the claim, so it is not as distinguishing a feature as is the various Nichiren schools' opposition to other schools. Also, your latest insertion mentioning the Dai-Gohonzon is non-sequitur where you've done it, because at that spot in the article I was writing about the Gohonzon as a generality, not about specific ones—which, the Dai-Gohonzon included—were mentioned immediately after your insertion, and in context!

I also feel that you're inserting you own wishful thinking—your personal image of who or what you want Nichiren (Daishonin) to be or have been, or to have said. I'm not saying your images are wrong (that's not a matter to address here), I'm saying it doesn't belong in the article, inserted as fact. When we work on these articles, we (me included) have to make some effort to distance ourselves from our personal sentiments.

Also, Nichiren Daishonin's attitude towards other sects and the concept of religious tolerance are two different things: except for notions held by people of certain political philosophies, opposition to other religions as in Nichiren's case does not preclude tolerance, nor does tolerance not preclude opposition. I agree with your interpretation of the spirit of the Rissho Ankoku Ron and other gosho ("Hey, look, guys - we've been given a direction from the guy who has the map, and we're not paying attention!"), but this is precisely what is meant by "opposition to other schools." Since you've obviously read the gosho, I'm sure you know of the Four Dictums. Nichiren Daishonin was not saying "hey guys, let's all get along," he was saying, "hey guys, what you believe in is wrong; you'd better change it." Of course, I agree with you the Nichiren Daishonin is getting a bad rap when scholars characterize him as militant and all that—even though they claim to have read Rissho Ankoku Ron, they seem to overlook the passage that says "although they may carry swords and staves, they should never use them to take life." But that is different from "not opposing." And they overlook that Nichiren was talking on a religion level, not a secular one: of course people have to get along, regardless of religious beliefs, on the plane of daily life.

Please re-read today's additions and see if they can't be worked in more smoothly, without interrupting the logical flow and temporal sequence. There are also some spelling and mechanical problems (comma placement, etc.). I don't want to offend or step on toes, so I'm going to refrain from doing it myself today. Later, Jersey_Jim 06:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments over the validity of the Dai-Gohonzon

The section of this article discussed in this section of the talk page was deleted 12/28/2006 as it had not been discussed in 9 months and was not in the tone, style, or from the point-of-view of Wikipedia. Also, any sources that were cited were biased and not historical. --Danreitz 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So far, I've left alone the contributions on the differing views of the Dai-gohonzon, even though I've felt that they don't belong here because of the way they are written (i.e., as arguments rather than descriptions); but with the latest additions by User_talk:202.0.106.130, something needs to be done to bring the article back to an encyclopedic one.

I'm addressing the portion of the article beginning at Nichiren#No known documentary evidence by Nichiren that he inscribed the Dai-Gohonzon (What Nichiren stated was the fulfillment of the purpose of his advent) and ending with the paragraph preceding the sub-head Nichiren#Passing.

Descriptive mention of the differences mentioned is warranted because of the historical background to them and because they do, indeed, exist; but with the latest addition (of a counterargument to the previous one against the Dai-Gohonzon's validity), I think this material needs to be moved to a separate, perhaps sub-, article and sorted out: the writing is sub-standard and meandering, and the new material especially violates a lot of formatting conventions. I propose moving this material to a sub-page (e.g., Nichiren\Daigohonzon_issues), sorting it out there, and then deciding whether to re-introduce it into the Nichiren article, put it into the article on Nichiren Buddhism, or put it into a new article on the Dai-Gohonzon itself.

I'm also having difficulty fathoming any rationnel for styling "Dai-Gohonzon" "daiGohonzon" and would appreciate an explanation.

I've tried to clean up the new material a bit, but more work is needed. Opinions on how to handle this section (i.e., where to put it for the time being, not the doctrinal merits of its content) appreciated.... HTH, Jim_Lockhart 08:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I am Safwan. Thank you for your post. I agree - in general - about your current impression regarding my new addition about the DaiGohonzon (DaiGohonzon probably a better writting than 'daiGohonzon'), which I posted today 14th Feb 06.

As a novice to wikipedia, I have some difficulties in entering data properly, and thank you for your suggestions for organisation of the material.

I think the material can be installed under a general new title: Nichirens's Purpose of Advent and fulfillment of mission. This sounds more general than " Arguments" or "Arguments about the daiGohonzon" . So far, we have 2 views on this subject: (a) the DaiGohonzon (the new material), and (b) overcoming persecution (the previous material starting with : fulfillment of mission and no documentary proof about the DaiGohonzon etc..).

I think you'd agree that to present an opinion, one just should not start ny a negatuon. I mean , to present an opinion of what was Nichiren's purpose of advent, the current title : "No known documentary evidence of... " constitutes a truly messy neating and somehow forceful start, I would say, rather than the smooth mature logic of : first ask the question what was Nichiren's purpose of advent. And then let people present their arguments.

It seems logical, perhaps, to present first the general question: What was Nichiren's purpose of advent. If so, we have so far the two views on what was Nichiren's purpose of appearnace: view /a/with the DaiGohonzon and view /b/ with no-DaiGohonzon .

I think you are right, that a re-organisation should be done to put both views in order. I wondered, what would a truly logical approach be to this subject? Would it be , perhaps, to introduce a separate point: "What was Nichiren's purpose of advent". Such a title can be a wonderful trigger to an impartial presentation of views. But I had difficulties in creating a new archive.

Regarding the encyclopedical nature of wikipedia, I think people's trust to the impartailaity of presented information can only be supported by presenting the views of all, and not only filtered some, of Nichiren's observers.

Finally here, I want to say I have no idea how that (User-talk ... number shown somewhere above.. ) was associated with my posting! My user's name is SafwanZ, and my email is: gachiriki@yahoo.com.au 60.229.70.142 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)SafwanZ60.229.70.142 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Regards and appreciation.

Hi SafwanZ. Thanks for your reply. I was wondering whether you were new. The number associated with your name was the IP address from which you accessed Wikipedia when you made your edits. If you sign up as a user, you can assign yourself a user name (I guess I'm one of the few who uses his real name), and contributions you make while logged in under your user name will always be associated with your user name. If you'd like to continue contributing, I would recommend that you consider signing up (it doesn't cost anything, and as far as I know there are no disadvantages).

Your contribution about the validity of the Dai-Gohonzon appears more or less as a rebuttal to what User:Faith Likewater contributed; unfortunately, its placement in the main article is inappropriate in that such exchanges are supposed to take place on talk pages such as this one. (Personally, I find the content of Faith's section too argumentative and detailed for this article, too; but I also believe merely removing it would be unfair both to Faith and to readers who want to know about this aspect of the Dai-Gohonzon's history.)

Before Faith's contribution appeared, the article reflected only the view that the Dai-Gohonzon is the ultimate purpose of Nichiren's advent (i.e., the view of the Fuji schools; see version of 1 November 2005); Faith's work introduced the view held by most non-Fuji schools.

From the content of your contribution, I gather that you are knowledgeable about this aspect of Nichiren Buddhism. In this context, I look forward to working with you to make this or another a better article. I feel that details of this sort deserve an independent article that would be linked to from this one.

HTH and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Good advice, Jim, regarding signing in first! (My username is SafwanZ. I do not understand why the system does not recognise me? maybe beacuse I did not submit any article yet?) BTW, Safwan is my real name, and I am practicing Nichiren's Buddhism for over 22 years. This brings us to the subject of how to do justice in presenting an article about Nichiren in the Wikipedia. If we take a look at the 'Contents', we would see that the main article was written with a strong focus on denying the validity of the daiGohonzon.

Please take - for example - the subtitle: /1.5 Completion of mission in this world/. The explanation given in 1.5 represents the opinion of only a part of Nichiren’s believers. In general, it represents the view of priesthood administered schools, denying the beliefs of the majority of Nichiren’s believers. There are 12 million people who would say that the presented explanation is biased and historically inaccurate. If the Wikipedia is the product of ordinary world citizens participation, then it is only logical to include the ordinary world citizen’s views about Nichiren.

We all agree that Wikipedia’s policy of Neutrality would require that Wikipedia pages should not be a place for sectarian implications and onesided presentation. Impartiality requires to present all points of view equally. “Equally” also means that the main Contents about the subject would include both views, without monopoly of one view over the other. If we allocate for SGI Buddhism’s beliefs an obscure corner of just “Talk”, or something to be “discussed” about, then we are not doing justice to equal presentation of information.

With respect to Faith’s opinion, I think that, starting with point 1.5 (about Nichiren's mission), neutrality requires introduction of a note which clarifies the fact that there arte 2 views about Nichiren’s mission in this world :

/a/ The view of traditional schools (administered by priesthood,except N.Shoshu) /b/ The view of the laity organised school (SGI), which separated from N. Shoshu.

If we take a look at point 1.6 : we see that it was specifically dedicated to speak about lack of a letter from Nichiren about the DaiGohonzon. Point 1.6 was written in rather a circular way (assuming that validity depends on a letter about validity). It was only natural to present point 1.7.

Clarity would require, perhaps, integrating 1.6 and 1.7 into one point, because both address the same issue of DaiGohonzon, as view /a/ and view /b/.

I suggest that point would be: 1.5 Nichiren’s mission and purpose of advent. There are two major beliefs about Nichiren’s purpose of advent in this world:

1.5.1. Fulfilling the prediction of the Lotus Sutra. (Faith’s view) 1.5.2. Inscribing the DaiGohonzon (Safwan’s view)

I do not know how to organise the points above, and I wish first to hear from you and from Faith, with sincere respect to all, SafwanZ 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)SafwanZSafwanZ 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim and Safwan,

Faith Likewater, here.

I have no problem with reorganizing these pages. As I told you a while back, Jim, I simply can't do it myself. Re: Nichiren's mission, as my article states, I based my findings on "On Persecutions Befalling the Sage" because the Writings of Nichren Daishonin identifies this particular letter as the only one of Nichiren's writings that refers to the Dai Gohonzon's inscription as being the purpose of Nichiren's advent. If there were another document of Nichiren's that is identified in this way, I would examine it. However, as of now, this letter, "On Persecutions...," is the only one officially designated by the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu to refer to the inscription of the Dai Gohonzon as the purpose of Nichiren's advent. Since my article is based on the letter officially said to be the only one of Nichiren's letters that references the Dai Gohonzon as the being the purpose of Nichren's advent, I believe any rebuttal of my article should reference only that letter as well.

Safwan, your article includes a lot of information that is not relevant to the information in "On Persecutions befalling the Sage" and which, therefore, to me has no relevancy to what I wrote since I strictly referenced only that letter, since it is the only one the SGI and Nichiren Shoshu says offically indicates that the Dai Gohonzon was the purpose of Nichren's advent. Sorry to repeat myself here, but it seems that you, Safwan, have missed my point of sticking only to the officially sanctioned writing regarding this matter.

[Aside: BTW, I have repeatedly asked people who have extensively studied these matters whether or not there exists another writing of Nichiren's in Japanese that references the Dai Gohonzon as being the purpose of Nichiren's advent and they have repeatedly indicated that other than "On Persecutions...." there is no known document of this type at this time.]-Faith--70.229.195.234 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The section of this article discussed in this section of the talk page was deleted 12/28/2006. --Danreitz 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Things missing from this article and my edits

• Nichiren's love and mastery of the game Go, including published works on the topic
• His strong belief in the enlightenment of women, which goes against all beliefs of the current day
• The Gosho being almost entirely a collection of correspondence with commoners, including women
• He never wrote (even treatise) in classical Chinese or Japanese (the accepted practice for a priest), though he was well trained in both
• he lived his entire life on donations from his followers
• he was a celibate vegetarian
• The Tatsunokuchi Persecution was a naturally occurring comet that cycles every other century and half
• He hated Zen, and considered it heretical in the extreme as being outside all canon, yet it was favored highly in the Imperial Court.

In retrospect, I should stop and leave this alone. Really, the love of the game Go I feel is necessary (and the comet - it has a name). Perhaps we can discuss. I'll try to find some sources.

I removed all the question marks from the page save on for each word or phrase. Beyond the fact that they're very distracting, there doesn't need to be a place holder for every known character in the phrase. When it's translated, it can be cleaned up. I'm curious if you want the modern or classical Japanese here.

Please forgive in advance my edit summary. I will admit I'm a little cranky, and probably shouldn't have come here. I usually don't. If I've pissed too many people off, I'll remove it from my watchlist. Chalk it up to a small bout of insomnia. Sincerely, NinaOdell | Talk 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing isn't cited - no wonder there's a clean-up tag on it. The references aren't done correctly at all. Everyone, please see Citation templates. There are online sources for most of this material. NinaOdell | Talk 14:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with your browser's settings if you saw question marks; e.g., you don't have a Japanese or Japanese-capable Unicode font installed correctly. In any case, you deleted all the kanji strings for names and proper nouns, leaving only the first character. I'm reverting those changes, but will leave your new section stand, although with the block quote formatted properly (setting material in a block and adding quotation marks and italicizing it is doubly redundant: use one of the three, but not two or more of them).

As for your other points:

• I believe the point about women's ability to attain enlightenment is mentioned elsewhere, in articles about Nichiren and other forms of Mahayana Buddhism. That women's enlightenment was counter to contemporary believes is incorrect: Sakyamuni in India taught women's enlightenment; further, women in contemporary Japan had more rights (such as inheritance rights and property rights in divorces) than you seem to believe.
• Nichiren wrote several treatises, foremost among them his Risshō Ankoku Ron, in classical Chinese (i.e., kanbun); all his non-kanbun works are, by definition, in classical Japanese.
• Zen was not favored by the Imperial Court, at least not during Nichiren's lifetime; rather, it was the warrior class that was enamored of Zen.
• The Tatsunokuchi Persecution was not a comet; I assume you mean the "bright object that appeared in the sky and scared off the executioners" during the persecution. Yes, it was a comet; so what? For Nichiren, what it was, was unimportant; in contrast, was his executioners thought it was, and their reaction to it, were important.

I know nothing about whether Nichiren was celibate (I assume he was, since that was the custom of the day) or whether he was vegetarian (I have noticed no evidence either way in my reading), but if you can substantiate these points, I suggest you add them as appropriate. Likewise about many of his writings having been to women (not difficult to substantiate, since it is an open fact).

As for citations, there is a pile of publications cited at the end of the article, all of which I used to one degree or another for anything I contributed to the article. I believe that most of the rest of the article reflects their content as well. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for everything. I really appreciate it. NinaOdell | Talk 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to Present this Article from a Neutral Point of View

This is from the Dai Gohonzon page I just created after moving the information that was originally in this article on Nichiren to the new page: As suggested by an editor on the Nichiren article talk page, I moved this information from it's original page (Nichiren) to this one to create a new page specifically on the Dai Gohonzon because the Dai Gohonzon is only considered legitimate by one Nichiren Shoshu school (the Fuji branch) and therefore does not warrant a large section in an article on Nichiren's life. Rather, it warrants it's own separate page and/or a mention in an article about controversies related to Nichiren. The article which originally contained this material listed the Dai Gohonzon under the heading "Completion of Mission in the World" which is a subjective, not scholarly, heading. In any case, this "Dai Gohonzon" page is in progress, not intended to be complete at this point.--Faith Likewater 09:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire Nichiren page needs citations. The reference list at the end does not sufficiently indicate what information came from which sources. If anyone can tackle this, that would be great. I'll try as time allows.

Please help clean up this page by using in-line citations and removing text that is biased toward a particular Nichiren sect's dogma, traditions, and legends. Much of the current text is not cited and verified, or is not cited and verified in the words of Nichiren, his contemporaries, or scholars whose work relates to him, his time, and/or his teachings. Thanks much.--Faith Likewater 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you miss the point about NPOV and balance: it is not to remove "text that is biased toward a particular Nichiren sect's dogma, traditions, and legends," but to include all such biases/versions fairly. If you can do, then do so. Jim_Lockhart 09:11, 24

July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim, The problem I see is that since there are very few in-line citations, one veiw is presented as factual information when it is really a viewpoint based on a certain sect's teachings. Providing in-line citations and rewording or removing statements that are opinions not facts would clear up this problem. For instance, I changed the heading "Turning Point," which is a subjective view of the failed execution attempt on Nichiren to "Failed execution attempt--viewed by Nichiren as a critical turning point in his life." This heading clearly indicates who viewed the attempt as a turning point since everyone didn't. And most important it makes it clear that the idea that this event was a "turning point" is not just an opinion of the wikipedia editor who wrote this section. All the other information in this article, I believe, would read more credible with the simple addition of in-line citations and the removal of subjective statements. I will tackle this as my time allows. But I hope others will too. Especially the original author(s) of this article.--Faith Likewater 16:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a case of a subjective statement that needs rewording in my view: "Their intent was to arrest and summarily behead him." A clean up would read: "Nichiren believed their intent was to arrest and summarily behead him" (here a citation from Nichiren's writings that supports this assessment of his view of the situation is needed). This type of reworking throughout the article would make the whole piece read more like one from a legitimate encyclopedia. Again, will tackle as time allows. --Faith Likewater 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to keep this article neutral, I think the following is superfluous: "Hosshaku kenpon means "discarding the provisional and revealing the true": Nichiren, at this point, discarded his "provisional" identity as a mortal priest and began to reveal his "true" identity as the reincarnation of the Bodhisattva Jōgyō (上行菩薩) or as the True Buddha (本仏: hombutsu), depending on which school's interpretation you accept."

This is a page on Nichiren, not the various sects and their interpretations. As far as I know, Nichiren never claimed to be the True Buddha, before or after Hosshaku kenpon. He did subsequently claim to be the votary, messenger, envoy, or emissary of the Lotus Sutra. The case can be made he was refering to himself as an incarnation of Jogyo.

In any case, my point here is not to argue one way or the other, but to point out what belongs in a Wiki biographical article. Let the articles on the various sects explain how they interpret this point. I think it's enough to say this was a transformative point in Nichiren's life and he began referring to himself as "emissary of the Thus Come One Shakyamuni — Bodhisattva Superior Practices (Jogyo )" in his own writings.

For an article like this, it's what's recorded in history that is important and should be relied upon, let "interpretations" alone. Tom F. (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I've not posted anything on Wikipedia before, so please bare with me if the format is wrong, or if I'm typing in the wrong place.

There's some good points been mentioned, especially about The Dai Gohonzon, I believe Nichiren made no mention of it whatsoever. I think the general belief prior to Nichiren, regarding women attaining enlightemnent, was that they could not attain Buddhahood 'in their present form'. Nichiren emphasised that they could, because in The Lotus Sutra, the Dragon Kings Daughter attained Buddhahood without having to change form.

I also think it is safe to assume Nichiren was vegetarian, because according to another Wikipedia page, eating meat other that fish or birds was outlawed in Japan between the 9th and 19th century CE. Also, Nichiren stated that killing even an ant will lead to rebirth in Hell. And he also stated he had never harmed even an ant.

Cheers

Steve (INB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.184.252 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC) i've made a change. if i'm over-ruled then i'll look for more references later, the book i have read mentioning nichiren paints him as quite unpleasant so the article does seem a little one sided to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.76.11 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Women and Buddhism

I think the section on women is misleading. The wording makes it sound as if Nichiren's views we revolutionary for the whole of Buddhism when they were mainly revolution just for Japan. Even the linked wikipedia page points out that the role of women in the vajrayana schools was much more open and theses had been in existence for hundreds of years prior to Nichiren. I have changed it appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.1.123 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nichiren's Contribution to Buddhism

Since this is a general article on Nichiren I wonder if this paragraph is not to specific. It goes into great detail that some Nichiren-Schools might interpret different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.172.253 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The article includes very specific events and details about Nichiren's life and it needed this general information about the basics of his teachings. The mentioned 3 elements of Nichiren's teachings are very broad, they are not specific. Nichiren's specific writings (which comprise hundreds of treaties and letters) are not mentioned here because this aricle is supposed to give a general view on his "Buddhist identity".

Of course, other schools of Buddhism do not have to agree with Nichiren. But this article is not about other schools. It is about Nichiren's life and teachings, which generated world wide followers. Nichiren contribution to Buddhism produced a profound dialogue in Mahayana Buddhism and such input he made is a very essential knowledge about his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafwanZabalawi (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Limited sources

Unreliable SGI sources are overused as references- neutral sources please.andycjp (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC) ..................................................................... If you have any objection to a certain citation, please specify it and prove the correctness of your claim. The "sources" you were referring to are NOT created by SGI. These sources or refernces constitute not SGI text but original Nichiren's letters, written over 750 years before SGI emerged. Nichiren letters are acknowledged by all Nichiren schools. It is against Wikipedia policy to insert personal judgements and doubts about historical sources and references without a proof. To call SGI sources "unreliable" is a personal view unshared by thousands of professors from various universities world wide who acknolwledge SGI activities for culture and education. Again, the sources you were objecting about were created by Nichiren hundreds of years before SGI SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of ambiguities

I have deleted sentences with vague, ambigious and unverifiable statements, such as: " Some traditions suggest that..." What traditions? Do they have names? And Who said what? On Wikipedia citation and refrences are the rule, and not imaginary ideas. I deleted also a sentence starting with: "This has been interpreted ..." without mentioning WHO and WHERE the alleged interpretation was given. Another example of inconsistency with Wiki rules is using the word" "Maybe" instead of facts: " Nichiren's spiritual equality - regarding women - may have been due to..." This way of entering data is weakening the article and is against Wiki rules. Please avoid "maybe - maybe not" , or "Someone said..." and also please check your refrence websites. Mentioning websites but which are inoperative (as is the case with the game of Go), makes the subject unverifiable and meanigless. Thank you. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren's view of Precepts

I've added some info to the 'Nichiren's views' section, re. His view of precepts. Please feel free to add/amend as necessary. Steve (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of incorrect statement

The statement accusing Nichiren of following "unscientific views" of his time was deleted as it was based on incorrect understanding. The deleted statement was about a letter written by Nichiren in which he mentioned a metaphore - not of his creation - but one found in the Lotus Sutra about "a turtle seeking a floating sandalwood" to survive. "To illustrate the extreme rarity of encountering this sutra, the Buddha likened it to the difficulty of a one-eyed turtle encountering a floating sandalwood"'http://nichiren.info/gosho/Turtle.htm There is a difference between a book on Physics and a spiritual text of a Sutra. Religious texts employ Metaphors and magnified illustrations, fantastic stories..etc... not as physically occurring facts, but to make the essence of their message close to understanding - or to to convey a concept which is beyond time and space. This is found in all religions. As for Nichiren, his teachings are based on the Law of Cause and Effect, the solid ground of both science and the spiritual field SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Safwan, That's an important metaphor, that was employed by Shakyamuni Buddha, and quoted often by Nichiren to show how difficult it is to encounter the Lotus Sutra. There's nothing to say Nichiren actually believd the turtle existed. So I agree with you deleting the statement. Steve (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed passage saying Nichiren was 'controversial' and 'exclusivist'

I removed the passage because Nichiren was no more exclusivist than any other Buddhist teacher in His day. The article on Honen, for example, doesn'y say he was 'exclusivist', even though he taught that only the Nembutsu was useful to people. I suppose 'controversial' could be put back, if it's cited correctly. Steve (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New image of Nichiren

I've changed the image of Nichiren. Hope that is OK. Steve (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of passages from Nichiren Writings

An account of the circumstances which led various Nichiren temples to serve the Shinto based authorities in Japan (WWII) is published in “The Untold History of the Fuji School” of SGI_USA, 606 Wilshire blvd Santa Monica , CA, 90401, World Tribune Press, ISBN:978-0-915678-76-1, year 2000:

“ In 1941, the government revised the Maintenance and Public Order Act…[which] stipulated ‘any blasphemous act against the dignity of a Shinto shrine as punishable…'.The government also pressured the various Nichiren schools to delete passages from the Daishonin’s writings it viewed as disrespectful toward the emperor… In June 1941, the newly merged Nichiren Schools, which consisted of the Minobu, Kenpon Hokke and Hon’mon schools, decided to delete 208 phrases and passages from seventy of the Daishonin’s writings….

Following the lead of the combined Nichiren Schools, the Nichiren Shoshu administrative office issued a notice, dated August 24, 1941, stating that because the Daishonin’s work were written more than seven hundred years ago....people of the present age in reading his writings might “doubt the Daishonion’s desire to respect the emperor ….” .

The notice also states : “ The doctrine that the Buddha is true while deities are transient is a vulgar belief in Buddhism…This school, therefore, shall not rely on this doctrine…”.

Furthermore, on September 29, the Nichiren Shoshu Study Department issued a notice that instructed the deletion of passages from the Daishonin’s writings where the nation’s sovereignty – symbolized by the Sun Goddess, which Shinto considers to be the supreme diety – is described as inferior or subordinate to the Buddha. For example, the priesthood deleted the passage where the Daishonin states, “I,Nichiren, am the foremost sage in Jambudvipa” WND,642.”

Ref. Pages 110 and 111 of the above-mentioned book. ……………………………………………….

• It is worth mentioning that Nichiren Shu has apologized for their support of the military authorities and for the deletion of some Gosho passages to appease the military regime. Nichiren Shoshu head temple, however, have not - yet- apologized for the same action. Currently, there are two branched organizations :The Association of Priests for the Reformation of Nichiren Shoshu and the Association of Youthful Priests Dedicated to the Reformation of Nichiren Shoshu , which demand declaring an apology by the head temple for the cooperation with the Shinto authorities during the II WW: http://www.nichiren.com/en/special_topic/special_topic02/st02_92.html

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Own Research Re: Nichiren's writings being changed during WWII?

Ref 6, which says Nichiren's writings were changed during WWII and link to sokahumanism.com looks like own research. - Steve (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right about the reference here being Own Research, but there is a book that I've read which does talk about this as well, so I'll look for it and change the reference over to that instead. Mollari08 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• The truth about cooperation and support of various Buddhist schools during the W W II, of the military authorities in Japan - should be honestly stated. Reference 6 points to just one example of this cooperation, namely to DELETION of certain passages from Nichiren's writtings (by N.Shu and N.ShoShu).

Reference 6, which indicates this fact, did not state that Nichiren writings were CHANGED" as Steve wrote, but that certain sentences were DELETED. The reference is based on specific archival materials mentioned in a published book : “The Untold History of the Fuji School” (ISBN: 978-0-915678-76-1 World Tribune Press, Santa Monica, 2000) and also on current online reference of Young Priests of Nichiren ShoShu demanding apology of the Head Temple for cooperation with the military and the deletion of passages from Nichiren’s writings: http://www.nichiren.com/en/special_topic/special_topic02/st02_92.html - please refer to paragraph: "The deletion of the Gosho passages". Deletion of uncomfortable truths signifies hidden cooperation, and to remove doubts I'll specify the source of references related to the subject below. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the info being there, but I think it should be referenced to a published work. Also, Safwan and all, please feel free to delete any external links to The nichiren Site, as the site no longer exists. ~ Stephen (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearing ambiguity

The following sentence appears in the article:

"Nichirō agreed with Nisshō's defense of Nichiren as a Tendai reformer. He founded a practice hall that became part of Ikegami Honmon-ji, the site of Ni--Catflap08 (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)chiren's death. His school is now part of Nichiren-shū" Citation needed to prove that Nichiro "agreed with Nissho's defense"...This is a very poorly worded sentence. The word "He" here is ambiguous. Who is the "He" ? If it refers to Nichiren then to say that Nichiren's school is now [only a part of] part of N Shu, begs the Q about what is N Shu's other part? I am monitoring this and appreciate a clarification. Regards, SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have no problems to read it as refering to Nichiro. It is also easy to find out that it was Nichiren who founded the temple before his death. It is today one of the most important temples of Nichiren Shu. It would then mean that Nichiro physically founded the temple according to Nichirens wish. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, my friend Catflap, you said it clearly: "I have no problems to read it as refering to Nichiro"'. But the Article here is about Nichiren. It is not about the personal opinion of Nichiro combined with Nissho's defennse! What defence? And what is the proof of this unnecessary sentence?

Further, you kindly mentioned about the temple "It is today one of the most important temples of Nichiren Shu". This is an advertisment for Nichiren Shu as the good guys who have a "patent" on Nichiren, who built their "most important temple"...etc. Again the article is about Nichiren not about the Shu or the ShoShu which appeared AFTER nichiren died. Don't you think that a sentence saying that Nichiren ShoShu has the richest collection of Nichiren's Gohonzons and letters - don't you think that this is advertising the ShoShu with a hidden implication of being the good guys who preserved Nichiren's treasures?

I suggest deletion of the sentence of patenting Nichiren to any school. ALL the 20+ Nichiren sects including the SGI claim sole representation of the true Nichiren's intentions etc... If we are going to keep Nichiro and Nisshu and the story of the temple of N Shu etc... I might add that SGI teaches that understanding Nichiren's identity as a "Tendai reformer" is a superficial view which is unsupported by any documentary proof and that his true identity was the Buddha of the Latter Day. Nichiren's life was a manifestation of the state of Bodhisattva-Buddha of the Mutual Possession of the Ten Worlds .SafwanZabalawi (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the sentence you mentioned was not authored by myself. In any case I believe that the unbiased reader would clearly see that this article is about Nichiren. Further more Wikipedia offers the option of adding the 'citation needed' tag. In my understanding Nichiren remained a Tendai priest all his life and never founded a particular school or sect, but his disciples laid the foundation to what today is known as the various forms of Nichiren Buddhism. Hence the schools as such were founded much later. Secondly I have not the faintest clue what would be an advertisement of Nichiren Shu. Its simply a fact that basically all sites of historic importance to Nichiren Buddhism are marked by temples of Nichiren Shu. If one would state that St.Peter in Rome is a catholic dome nobody in their right mind would consider this as an advertisement for the Catholic church, or would they? This should come as no surprise as Nichiren Shu generally is being regarded as the oldest school in Nichiren Buddhism and since the split between Nichiren Shoshu and SGI it yet again is the largest of the traditional Nichiren schools. When counting in the new religious movements SGI would be the largest. Some schools regard Nichiren as a Tendai reformer, some regard him as a Boddhisatva some as a Buddha and one fine day some might see him as the incarnation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster its all up to the definition of the respective tradition. And finally do not call me your 'friend' ... I find this patronising.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• As you kindly mentioned, the article is about Nichiren. It is not about Nichiro, or Nichiren Shu or SGI being the largest in membership. If you agree that this is the case, then that sentence (about Nichiro and Nichiren Shu temples and Tendai views...this messy and unreferrenced sentence):should be removed. It is a product of weak combination of own views - and it has no reference. If no citation source is given then I'll remove it as it violates Wikipedia rules.

You were correct that Nichiren's identity is differently perceived by diiferent sects. However using the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was a poor choice in explaining your message of how diverse Nichiren's identity is perceived, and I am sure you could have found a better wording. I'll start a paragraph with Nichiren's Identity and how he is perceived by different schools.

Nichiren started a great shift in Buddhism, declaring the Law and inscribing the Gohonzon, and he formed his own network of disciples, having nothing to do with any specific Tendai temple. He clearly mentioned in the Gosho: " My disciples form your ranks and follow me" http://www.sgilibrary.org/view.php?page=765&m=3&q=form your ranks. Thank you for the opportunity to expand on how Nichiren is viewed through different perspectives and in different schools of Nichiren Buddhism.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yet again you do not seem to recognize the tools that Wikipedia offers. It is perfectly fair to point out that a part of this or any other article may be disputed. It just seems fair to give whoever authored this sentence the chance to add a proper reference. As nobody can say if it’s 100% false or not, however if somebody would write that Nichiren was born in Swindon, Wiltshire it’s clear that this would have to be corrected instantly. Anyone reading this article will come to realise that there are various views on Nichiren, as long as they do not overshadow the bibliographical facts those views even underline Nichiren’s, at times controversial role, in Japanese Buddhism. Furthermore I maybe should have added an “irony switch” in my former post … who regards Nichiren as what is entirely up to the definition of the respective Nichiren School and if someone comes up with a new definition its down to their belief system. The section you have added now however is highly controversial as believers of some schools will surely not submit to the section reading: ‘The basis for regarding Nichiren as the Buddha of the Latter day is based on his writings declaring his vow to become a Buddha: “From the beginning… I wanted to master Buddhism and attain Buddhahood” or also in post Tatsunokuchi’s persecution writings, identifying himself as parent, teacher and sovereign, features attributed to Shakyamuni Buddha.’ So far some might already hold their breath as he still does not say that he is a Buddha, but nevertheless you state why some schools believe that. Then, however you continue saying: ‘There is no essential contradiction between the three ways of perceiving Nichiren’s identity, as he can be seen as a priest who attained Buddhahood and acted as a Bodhisattva.’ This last sentence is clearly your private opinion nothing more and nothing less as it might cause the unbiased reader to think all Nichiren Schools agree on that.The first half of your newly added paragraph seems fine, although also unnecessary as a reference and link to the various Nichiren Schools has already been made in the article. Those articles are the best place to specify closer the respective schools views, concepts and ideas on his identity. In addition to that the first paragraph of the article already mentions how Nichiren is perceived in the respective schools. It may not have been your intention but by adding this new section you will blow up the article yet again and lay the grounds for endless edit wars … again.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Two things:

/1/ The statement related to Nichiro and NichirenShu temple, etc...needs a citaion source. Lack of factual reference makes it an opinion. And in any case : it is irrelevant to this article about Nichiren. /2/ It is true that how Nichiren is identified is up to the school upholding its particular vision on him. There is no harm in expanding on Nichiren's Identity in a separate and a well referrenced paragraph - as it is the most important subject in this article trying to define who Nichiren was throughout his life and own writtings. To be impartial, the article must include each of the 3 major views on Nichiren's identity, and their ground supporting their belief.However, an explanation on what each of the 3 visions is based - must be referrenced with documentary proofs, and this was done according to Wkipedia requirements of providing citations and references. You are right that the last sentence which integrates the 3 views into one - can be a source of controversy, so I'll delete it. In any case, if you are interested in Nichiren's own definition of his identity, please view http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Nichiren_Shu_and_Nichirens_Buddhaood.html : SafwanZabalawi (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for constructively heliping to clarify the article. I am very familiar with SGI's point of view. It is by all standards still an interpretation ... other Nichiren Schools simply come to differnent conclusions. The section on Nichiren's identity is in my opinion still quite tricky ... it would be well beyond the scope to find an answer on who Nichiren was. You may have found your answer to that question in your own belief already and I guess it is shaped by one of the many schools of Nichiren Buddhism, yet again each school will answer to that question in a different manner. The only thing I would find realistic is to point out that such different views exist any deeper explanation should be placed within the respective article. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren and Mahayana Buddhism

What is the difference between Nichiren's Buddhism and Mahayana Teachings? This question is frequently asked and its answer deserves a thorough research on main differences between the mainstream "Traditional" Buddhism and Nichiren's. I have encapsulated the main points in doctrinal issues to clarify this important subject .SafwanZabalawi (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

deletion of following paragraphs:

• Nichiren's Major Writings
• Nichiren and Mahayana Buddhism
• Nichiren's views
• Nichiren's teachings after his death
• Nichiren's views on women
• Nichiren’s Identity

It would suit the article best to 'reduce' it to Nichirens biography and works and to refere to the various schools that developed after his passing. This in an article not a thesis and its overloaded with hints and opinions that mirror the dogmas of schools that developed after his death. It up to the article of individual schools how his teachings are practised . Could we somehow agree on that so that the article becomes readable again? Same goes for article on Nichiren-Buddhism. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is some merit in what you suggest to delete, but not all of your list. For example Nichiren's Major Writings is not needed as some schools rank certain writings differently. The section about Nichiren's view on women is not really needed (because the main point is the attainment of Buddhahood by women - and this is included in Nichiren's views). The third one which I think can be deleted is about Nichiren's teachings after his death, as this info is about post-Nichiren time - and can be controversial.
• However Wikipedia article is not a birth/location/ death certificate, and it would be too poor - in fact empty and useless -article if it does not include what are Nichiren's teachings. In fact, without Nichiren's teachings - Nichiren himself would have disappeared in history unnoticed. Because his teachings do branch from Mahayana, then it is only logical to refer to what made his teachings specific and not mainstream Mahayana. This is extremely important to anyone seeking information about the teachings of this person and who was he. I sense a tendency to make information about Nichiren low key, and a tendency to hide information about his contribution to Buddhism. Scholastic approach should fear no truth and as far as truth (that is: referenced facts and quotes etc...) are included they should not be deleted. Many people ask why there are many various views about who Nichiren was - and running away from answering this question is not justified. Why? Why this reluctancy to avoid or delete most importnat sections: what are this person's teachings! Please bear in mind that this article covers what is common between particular Nichiren schools, not the difference between them (declaration of the daimoku, the inscription of Gohonzon etc... with a short background which is a common history). I find it unacceptable to deny the importance of presenting on Wikipedia what was Nichiren's views - because a person is recognised by refrence to his teachings. The same goes for Nichiren Buddhism. It is just unreasonable to have an article about Nichiren Buddhism if it does not include Nichiren's teachings! Lets be generous in presenting the properly supported information, this what Wikipedia is about, it is not about ambiguity (neither it is to include irrelevant sections). Deletion of what is relevant is a way to destroy the article for whatever reason- and this is against Wikipedia rules.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Even though Wikipedia states that one should be bold when editing I still want to explain why I want to delete some paragraphs. The article is about Nichiren the key elements of his teaching and thought are to my mind nicely woven into his bio.

• Nichiren and Mahayana Buddhism

In the introduction of the article Nichiren-Buddhism that is already mentioned. I believe for the unbiased reader that is enough to get an idea where on the Buddhist landscape his teachings are situated. Even though I consider myself fairly knowledgeable I would hesitate to make to many statements that might appear to be universal to all Nichiren Schools

• Nichiren's views

Again I believe this is not the right place for such a paragraph as Nichirens views are better explained in greater depth in the articles of respective schools, not even in the article on Nichiren Buddhism in too much depths. And one should be honest that what really ALL schools can agree on is not that much appart from the (O)daimoku. Differences already appear in the objects of worship and Gongyo – the selection of chapters for instance CAN indicate if a school belongs for instance to the Itchi-line or the shoretsu-line within Nichiren Buddhism. Many issues in the paragraph make references to SGI and that is an indication that this is the place were the information should be situated.

• Nichiren's teachings after his death

In a way by just adding a sentence or two this paragraph should be replaced by the content of the 'see also' paragraph.

• Nichiren's views on women

This paragraph should be deleted and a few sentences added in the writings section. Many of his letters were indeed directed to women believers and to my knowledge at least Nichiren Shu and SGI have both issued special collections of those letters. I would even be careful about the enlightenment issue as some other buddhist schools would challenge the view that only Nichiren thought women can also attain buddahood. Yet again an issue that should better be mentioned if at all within the article of respective schools.

• Nichiren’s Identity

Again its not the content of the paragraph that bothers me but the fact that the paragraph 'Posthumous titles' already deals with the issue – as the titles given to Nichiren directly indicate the way his identity is dealt with in respective schools and indeed in Japan in general. Wikipedia already offers the tool of internal links, otherwise one reads the same information over and over again in different articles.

Having said that deleting a paragraph does not mean its references are not valid but that the place for the paragraph should be thought twice about. Adding too much information in the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren-Buddhims opens the floodgates for endless debates. Its simly beyond the respective articles scope to bring in too much information on doctrine and teachings. Most encyclopedias basically just mention the importance Nichiren gave to the Lotus Sutra and then one is directed to the various forms of Nichiren Buddhism.Catflap08 (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edited the womens section but could not find Nyonin Gosho counterpart in SGI books...thought there was one.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Catflap, your statment above: I consider myself fairly knowledgeable undermines your input. This questionable self-reference and self satisfied understanding of Buddhism is not scholastic nor a Wikipedia reference and - as a source - is not valid for editing anything. You are of course entitled to your POV, and that's it, you are not entitled to claim knowledge of Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren himself - whom you claim to be knowledgeable about - was humble enough to mention " I may not be knowledgeable...". I think you would eventually come to understand and retract your self endorsment. There is nothing personal here: it is just that this self- refrenced claim of being "Fairly Knowledgeable" in Buddhism -to justify your POV is unacceptable in any serious examination.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ocht well no harm done … yes I would still consider myself fairly knowledgeable on Nichiren Buddhism – but unlike you I am not a member of any school anymore and try my best (nobody ever said always successfully) to be unbiased as much as I can. In my current life condition I am still a human not yet a Buddha (fairly – Definition: to a moderately sufficient extent or degree … does not mean I know all), but I am glad to know that you seem to exactly know what Nichiren might have thought or not. Thumbs up.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

* You're helping me expand myself and refrain from answering your persnal attacks. I'll help you in return with a short explanation on why the views on Nichiren Buddhism you are bringing express lack of knowledge (or half understanding), taking a simple example: your statement that Nichiren Buddhism lacks tolerance towards other Buddhist schools. THis statement did not deny the fact that Nichiren peacefully expressed his views about the teachings of these schools, but it does hide the fact that these Buddhist groups acted with extreme violence and physically attacked Nichiren several times - and this historical fact shows who was lacking any tolerance. You should have been knowledgeable about such a simple historical fact before judging Nichiren Buddhism. Please do not trouble yourself with any further justification, as it will be of no importance.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The Nichiren-towards-other-sects-tolrenace issue was authored nby someone else not by me I just did not delete it. Guess the person who orginally authored it was repeating material that states so ... the history of an article shows that though. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

On a side note it seems that you see yourself acting in accordance to they way issues like that were dealt with in Nichiren's times mire than 700 years ago – and violent times they were – and during the centuries also Nichiren-Buddhists committed acts of violence, with and without permission of their respective schools. But to be honest I am optimistic that Nichiren-Buddhists one day will be able to deal with that issue in a civilised manner one day. When I look at Roman Catholics and Protestants I think they are good example that in a much shorter time line such differences can be overcome – did you know that in some countries they are getting quite close to even celebrate the Lord's Supper/Sacrament together? I find that really revolutionary and mature. In Nichiren-Buddhism some individuals that belong to Nichiren-Shu, Nichiren-Shoshu or Soka Gakkai even get together to chant and discuss. It is sad that some participants, if found out, do lets say get bullied in their school afterwards. Sad is it not? But if other faiths can do it why not them?--Catflap08 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another proof how distorted information (about Nichiren's views) get thier way to passive minded individuals - who absorb them, then repeat the nonesense they herad or read - without critical investigation. Nichiren had the right to voice his views in the most strightforward way, honest as he was. He never used a weapon, he orderd his disciples never to act with violence. Historians who hide this knowledge, and who hide the fact that he was subjected to extreme violence by those who claim "he lacked tolerance" -are either foolish or willingly deceiving passive minded people. Such historians had some general "knowledge" about Nichiren Buddhism but they did not understand it. You too, soke about your self on this screen as being "knowlegeable" but you do not understand Nichiren Buddhism and keep saying that OTHER people said this or that. This is why your edits are problematic and do not level up to Wikipedia standards. To your knowledge, many Nichiren sects also had knowledge but lacked understanding and that's why they foolishly enslaved their temples and followers to authorities and engaged in nationalism, all rejected by SGI. You mentioned the catholic church, one of the most oppressive organisations in history, self-confessed of torture, burning people alive and now with thousands of cases of rapes - so their problem is not with the Protestants but with a dark karma they created (and is rejected by humanity and by the course of developing civilisation). You mentioned Nichiren ShoShu, which is a declining and less important temple now than Nichiren Shu, a confused school which fears basic questions and lacks ability for dialogue. Such a school is convenient for opponents of SGI (some churches included) - as all fear the revolutionary doctrines of SGI. Instead of view exchnage and dialogue, they use the media tabloids, rumours, lies, and by this they have already declared their defeat, on the long run. I am entering this to say that distorting information about SGI and Nichiren Buddhism on Wikipedia only add to the fact of dishonesty towards the truth and history.I may not frequently answer your comments, I did this now to help you understand few points you just raised, such as bringing the Catholic or other Church as an example affecting your views, but this standard is irrelevant to Nichiren Buddhism.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you pleas be so kind to point out where I said that Nichiren acted violently? I spoke of SOME Nichiren Buddhists. Yet agaian I refer to the histroy tool to see were and by whom the original entry was made. Yet again you speak on behalf of SGI which you are by all means entiteld to do so ... but you can not speak on behalf of Nichiren-Buddhism as a whole. It seesm that you do not regard those other schools as Nichiren-Buddhists then?--Catflap08 (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reorganising the Article

The proposal to have some section of the article deleted has some merit. I think the article would be more organised by deleting the sections on Writings, Identity, After Death teachings, and Major Writings. However the article would not be informative nor meaningful without basic reference to what Nichiren taught. This person is known by his teachings, and the article is not a birth-death certificate, so I will edit my entries on Nichiren's teachings to be concise & without delving in sectarian interpretations. Without going through particular sects practices, I think it is possible to present waht made Nichiren known - his general teachings - with broadmindedness and adherents to Wiki article writing rules.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

deletion

I would like to delete the following sections, since they indicate towards one school only. before those editions the article was far more balanced and neutral.

• Nichiren and Mahayana Buddhism
• Nichiren's views
• Nichiren's Identity

the style is quite questionable too --Catflap08 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is expected to give readers verifiable information about the subject. An article about Nichiren must naturally inform what teachings he introduced, what are the similarities and differences between his views and the general Mahayana, and essentially what was his identity, who was he for different schools of his followers. Knowledge is a right. The mentioned sections contain information of verifiable information essential and very relevant to the article, without which the article is utterly uninformative, poor, and even meaningless. It is meaningless to have an article about X and hide or delete what X teachings were, who was this X (in the perspective of various schools etc...). Deletion of such sections will be just vandalism, unsupported by Wikipedia guidlines and Wikipedia Editors will be asked to interfer to stop vandalism.

You gave 2 reasons why you do not like the sections which you suggest to delete:/a/ the references were sourced from “one school only” /b/ you don't like the style. First: It is not true that all the refrences were from one school (SGI) only.

The sections you objected to had the following sources: /1/ Nichiren own writings - which do not belong to one school only /2/ SGI literature (which has easily traceable publications) /3/ Independant and non-Buddhist scholar(Original Enlightenment and the Transformation of Medieval Japanese Buddhism, Dr. J. Stone), /4/ Tibetan Buddhism website http://www.khandro.net/deity_maitreya.htm /5/ Nichiren Shu source http://www.nichirenshu.org/newsletter/nichirenshu_news/spring98.html /6/ Hokke Kempon source http://www.kempon.net/What%20was%20the%20spritual%20identity.htm. These are 6 different sources. Now, because Nichiren is followed by variety of schools, then other schools are welcome to contribute and put their sources and add their point of view. This is how we can improve the article. I am asking Wikipedia Editors whether improving an article which has variety of sources is by deleting information or enriching it. The information in these sections do not represent SGI teachings but general Nichiren teachings. All schools following Nichiren agree with the information found in the mentioned sections such as his introducing the Daimoku and the Gohonzon etc... this is common knowledge. If more sources are needed please make an effort to enrich the article, not to delete it.

The other reason for your suggestion to delete the section you do not like is that you do not like the style. Please improve the style. Please cooperate constructively. The personal opinions you brought about your dislike are not Wikipedia supported reasons for deleting the work of others firmly supported by reliable sources.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Before you beat the vandalism drum you should get familiar with the guidelines as other editors have already suggested to you – you clearly have not done that as style in terms of readability are also part of that. I have no intention to clean after you, this is your job not mine and writing in Wikipedia is a whole lot of work. Before your edits the text was concise with most relevant internal links and well structured. For any issue that came to mind you opened up another section. In the end the text has lost its structure and you seemed to have ignored the work of those before you as you did not even try to incorporate the exiting text. You simply dumped your statements and wandered off again, which then is a clear sign that YOU were the one not cooperating with editors before you. So style in tersm of quality is very much an issue here.

• Nichiren and Mahayana Buddhism: This section is unnecessary as it could well have been incorporated within the existing structure i.e. point 1.1 and 1.2. You should also avoid a lecture style of writing – as this is no lecture. Sentences like “Nichiren confirms …” are an indication of private opinion … it should read “Nichiren believed that, …”. Yet again the existing text deals with his views on authority and when talking of Nichiren’s days also take into account that Buddhism was basically a state religion. So criticising other established schools was basically identical to criticise the political order of the time. Any indication that this could serve as a hint to todays relationship with other Buddhist schools is simply unsound, as Nichiren Buddhism is just as established as any other school– if its true for you organisation add the info there. So differentiate between now and then. Nichiren Buddhism are part of the Mahayana lineage … it’s a branch of Buddhism … there is simply no Mahayana School, its just a classification and they all differ from each other considerably – Nichiren is no exception in that.
• Nichirens views: What Nichirens views were is up to the discretion of the individual schools your leaning yourself quite forward here and I would advise you to add this info into the SGI-article. This is also true for the same sort of info in the Nichiren Buddhism article … avoiding too many duplications is also part of the guidelines. Most of all a section dealing with Nichirens CORE teachings already exists, expand an incorporate there when appropriate - yet again do not write a thesis.
• Nichirens Identity: Much of what you say here is already mentioned in point 6. Add there what you feel is missing and be concise. Also take note of existing internal links.

If as you said “The information in these sections do not represent SGI teachings but general Nichiren teachings” , you do start quite many sentences with “According to SGI …”. Nobody ever said that using SGI-sources is wrong. This article is about Nichiren the more sources the better to describe his biography and importance to today’s Nichiren-Schools. If it ends up in any nitty gritty detail on how Nichiren is regarded in school xyz it goes well beyond the articles scope. It is not a lecture on how you view him either though. Wikipedia is not a means to deliver religious views but to describe them objectively.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I am going to refer this subject to Wikipedia Editors soon. Some of the points you mentioned above seem to be valid and I'll find time within the coming few days to edit the text and make the article better. However, I am asking also Wikipedia Editors about your using the words "I have no intention to clean after you, this is your job not mine" and whether they express the culture of civilised interaction or openhearted cooperation. Wikipedia guidelines advise that attacking the other editor - such as in your using of the word "YOU" is like shouting in a converstaion. If you have a valid point please present it in an impartial manner. As you said Wikipedia takes time and it is beneficial for all of us to learn more.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do as you please but let me juts quote your words on another subject "SGI is proud to have critics and enemies, such as the racists, feudal arrogant priests and the emotional superficial mob". --Catflap08 (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Catflap08, I invite you to cooperate in a broadminded perspective to improve articles in concern, and I have respect to you. My quoted sentence above did not target you at all, did not target any person in particular and did not shout on you, or anyone, it is an important presentation of the Lotus Sutra's teachings in contemporary terms. Why is that? Because the Lotus Sutra states that those who believes in it will be criticised, hated, vilified, attacked ...by the Three Enemies, mentioned above in contemprary terms. This is just natural: for example, if someone advocates the concept of "Bodhisattva as Global Citizen" and criticises nationalistic and racial trends as causes for disasters - then such an opposition between humanism-based mind and race-based mind will naturally follow. Tendencies speak for themselves and reveal their inner quality.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case you should choose your words more carefully as your words were a downright insult to those who simply added critical views on the organisation you are a member of. So save your invites as some other editors informed you you were close of being banned. At the same time your actions then were a prime example why some accuse your organisation of being intolerant to opposing views. The "Bodhisattva as Global Citizen" is also a concept unknown to the rest of the Buddhist world and should be identified within the article it belongs to.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rfc: Structure, Content and one sided argument

Please take note of the ongoing dicussion in the talk section 'deletion' more neutral input would at this point be welcomed.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it would help a lot if the RfC presented a few more tangible questions which could be directly responded to than it does. So specifically indicating what particular concerns about "deletion" preompted the RfC, and what if any proposals to resolve that dispute are being considered would be quite helpful. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The current discussion emerged from a suggestion to delete 3 sections from the article. There is some merit in the suggestion as some parts (or some information) are repeated in other sections, however "mass deletion" would disadvantage the quality and information of the article, stripping it of value. Perhaps a combination of deletion-rewriting-reorganising will be meaningful:

/1/ The section on “Nichiren's Views” presents the major doctrines introduced by Nichiren and which distinguish his school of belief from other schools within Buddhism. In an encyclopedia, it is only reasonable to mention what are the teachings (or the views) of the person we are presenting. On the other hand, this section is packed with 11 references and detailed description, and may seem “too much”. For these 2 reasons, I suggest deleting this section - provided that appropriately presented information about the central teachings (or views) of Nichiren are included in another section in a more harmonious way.

/2/ Buddhism is generally categorized into Theravada and Mahayana branches. Nichiren established a system of practice within the Mahayana tradition but which is radically different from other schools. (In one discussion at Tricycle Buddhist magazine, some Mahayana Buddhist do not consider Nichiren’s teachings as belonging to Mahayana!). Here, in the section about “Nichiren and Mahayana” a mention of the teachings and views is most appropriate. It is utterly vital that a reader would have a glimpse of what did Nichiren introduce. All Nichiren schools are in agreement on the information and doctrines mentioned in the section Nichiren and Mahayana Buddhism. I will rework this section to make a concise identification of the person we are presenting here based on sources from various schools.

/3/ The most important subject is the identity of the person involved, whether historical or also spiritual identity. There are 3 interpretations of who Nichiren was, and the Section about “Nichiren’s Identity” should impartially list them. I think, however, that the location of the section of "Nichiren’s Identity" should not be as it is now, at the end, but rather at the start of the article. The Lead Section (intro) gives a hint on this subject but is not throroughly informative in details - as actually recommended in Wikipedia’s guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section : “The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs” . It appears that it is within the rules that a hint is given at the lead - but a further explanation is presented later in the article. I welcome comments.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence “... the major doctrines introduced by Nichiren and which distinguish his school of belief from other schools within Buddhism.” is already wrong as Nichiren never founded a school. Even all established schools within Nichiren Buddhism would argue that there are any indications or proofs that Nichiren stopped being a Tendai priest. He however did lay the foundtion that distinctive Nichiren Schools emerged AFTER his death. And as even his immediate disciples had different views on his beliefs and teachings it surprises me that you seem to exactly know on what today's Nichiren-Schools can agree on.

All Mahayana schools are different from one another if your views are correct then they should be incorporated into the article on Mahayana.

I already said that the identity issue has been raised in the section on posthumous titles … the titles given to Nichiren within separate Nichiren Schools also indicates on how his identity is being regarded (an issue missing in the SGI-article), it also indicates on how Nichiren was regarded by the government hence titles issued by the emperor, if this was done in order to console with Nichiren after his death could be speculated.

Having said that a biography normally begins with the birth runs through education and life time … issues on titles identities took place after Nichiren death. A biogrphy tends to have a chronological order.

Again I must say that you ignore the work of dozens of authors before you who tried hard boiling the articles on Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism down to what they were before you edited them . They mentioned the facts that are out there and indicated to doctrinal differences and issues without discussing them. I find this rather disrespectful as the history of both articles shows how authors of various Nichiren-Schools and individuals interested in the matter finally came up with a compromise. Again and again I said your views are NOT wrong, as they are views, but it puzzles me why they are absent in the article on SGI. Your views are distinct also by the terms you tend to use for views held within SGI. Both articles were written in a way finally to be of a general nature and all schools representing Nichirens teachings were linked --- within those articles one was and is able to find out more.--Catflap08 (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I suggest that we discuss the 3 emerging question one by one. Is this possible? Please do not start by denial and saying : the first sentence is "is already wrong as Nichiren never founded a school". Starting by pointing to the "wrongs" does not prove your point. Jesus never founded a school, did he? If you have a constructive suggestion please offer it and we can all come to a better improvement of the article.

It is too unfocused to comment on one subject then another then back to previous then to a third.... The suggested system of Discussion was to focus on point by point and it is most useful. I invite an impartial editor to comment on my suggestion that we start discussion point by point. Another important subject: it is a messy environment when a considerable part of the discussion about Nichiren jumps to SGI, which is not on the agenda of the focused matters at hand.This Discussion is not about personal views on SGI.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)